The objectives are to study the development of sustained attention in young infants and to relate development in sustained attention to concurrent heart rate (HR) changes and brain activity (EEG, ERP). The specific aims are: 1) To study sustained, subject-controlled attention in infants from 14 to 26 weeks of age, and to study the effect of attention on eye movements to complex / dynamic peripheral stimuli; 2) To study the cortical basis of planned eye movements and recognition memory in young infants with high- density EEG and ERP, and to study the effect of attention on infant saccade planning and infant, recognition memory; 3) To develop realistic models of cortical source analysis using infant anatomical MRI, to accurately identify brain areas that control the effect of sustained attention on eye movements, attention, and recognition memory. This research examines the patterns of attention found in normal children, relates those attentiontics on the timing and characteristics of eye movements in the early part of this age range (14 to 26 weeks). Experiment 2 examines infant planned eye movements using a spatial cueing procedure and Experiment 3 examines the relation between attention and recognition memory. These two studies will use "high-density" EEG recording to infer cortical sources of attention-directed eye movement control. Models of cortical source analysis using realistic models of infants' brain and head will be developed to examine the cortical sources of ERP in these two experiments. It is predicted that 1) age changes in sustained attention will interact with development changes in eye movements to affect attention-directed eye movements; 2) planned eye movements and recognition memory will show developmental changes that are related to changes in brain activity; 3) emerging technologies for inferring cortical activity using high-density EEG recording should reveal the cortical sources involved in the control of infant planned saccades and recognition memory. [unreadable] [unreadable] [unreadable] [unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable][unreadable]